The post you are reporting:
Barry, surely the people working behind the counter, those who come into contact with the customers in a banking institution, and those working inside the office, such as Roger did, do more than "just turning up".
But their bonuses, if they get any, are comparitively very small.
The top bankers get very high salaries in comparison, hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. But then, on top of it, they also get bonuses that exceed their salaries.
If their basic salary is very high, then why give them such exagerated bonuses on top of it?
If a bonus were to be 10% of the annual salary for an average worker, or even 20%, it would certainly make them happy.
On, say, £20,000 a year, that would be 2 to 4 thousand a year more.
So why does some top guy on, say, £300,000 a year, end up with a 1 million pound bonus? That's 330% more than their (top) salary.
Where is the justice, and what's the point?
If my colleague has daily two slices of bread and I have a whole loaf, why should I receive another 3 loaves of bread on top of it, every day? Do I need it?
Would it not be better to divide the 3 loaves among those who each have a few slices of bread?
Similarly, the chief executives of large share-holding companies take for themselves in the form of bonuses the dividends that should go to the share-holders.
Not content with their top salary, they slap a bonus on top that exceeds their (top) salary by many times.
These people are paying themselves money that does not belong to them, because they are making up the rules of "who gets how much".
They are not the private owners of the banks and share-holding companies, but help themsleves to the pantry in a way that is not worthy of a self-respecting person.
And they do it, because their top salary, which is possibly 10 times higher than that of the average "colleague" working in the same institution, "is not enough to live off".
What total and sheer utter insult!